Question Number: 18648

Law 13 - Free Kicks 3/30/2008

RE: Select Under 15

Mitch of Suisun City, Ca USA asks...

I was at a pre-season college game today. The attacking team was awarded a DFK; the attacker attempted a quick re-start. A defender immediately rushed to the ball and was awarded a yellow card for his efforts.

The Guide to Procedures states that a Center "Allows a free kick, without the necessity of a separate signal, except when the kicker indicates a need to have the ten yard minimum enforced" Rule 12 says that not respecting the required distance is a cautionable offense.

Is the 10 yard rule enforced even if the kicking player does not request it? Was the yellow card required?

Thanks

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Mitch, I think you're mixing apples and oranges when you talk about the Guide to Procedures and NCAA rule 12. NCAA, although close to the World's Laws of the Game differs in some aspects. Why this is allowed by US Soccer, the National Organization for Association Football in this country, escapes logic. However Law 13 and rule 13 are nearly identical.

So let's look at what happened. A direct free kick was awarded one side. This can only happen if their opponents commit one of the ten direct free kick offences. At that point the side with the kick may take it at their discretion AND the opposing side must retire the required distance and remain there until the ball is kicked and moved. You said this didn't happen because a defender rushed inside the required distance. You are correct in remembering failing to respect the required distance is a cautionable offence.

We, at AskTheRef have been saying for the last six years that Law 13 is specific when it says "If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer than the required distance: the kick is retaken". Further, because the kick is retaken someone has demonstrated by his actions his failure to respect the required distance. Last year in Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game in paragraph 13.3 [q.v.] US Soccer published that exact thing as policy. Perhaps the referee had read that paragraph and enforced the Laws of the Game or whatever NCAA calls them. Anyway when the defender rushed in he begged the referee to caution him and show him the yellow card. The referee just obliged him, as he should have -- and should have since the Infringements/Sanctions paragraph of Law 13 was first published in 1997. Further back, International FA Board Decision 2 of Law XIII demanded the same action and upon repetition the encroaching player was sent-off -- now that goes all the way back to the 1937 version of The Laws. See where this is going yet?

Referees, who are entrusted with enforcing the Laws of the Game, have not been for so long that the myth "an attacker must ask for ten" was born. It takes courage to enforce the Laws of the Game when many/most other referees don't. I ask you Mitch, in which camp will you pitch your tent?

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

Hooray, another referee found who has the [guts] to enforce the Laws. We only need a few thousand more onboard, and all this nonsense of preventing a quick restart will be eradicated from the game.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Mitch,
The MYTH that attackers must REQUEST ten yards is one that we work very hard at dispelling. I expect hereafter you too will no longer allow this MYTH to be perpetuated as you NOW are aware that defenders have NO rights and a SINGLE obligation at the taking of a free kick that is to immediately withdraw to a MINIMUM of ten yards otherwise they are guilty of delaying the restart or failing to respect the distance which are cautionable misconduct show the yellow card. A quickly taken kick CAN find opponents closer because it does take a second or to get up and away. These opponents are not sanctioned unless they react to the kick before it is put into play. This includes stopping the withdrawal or sticking out legs or moving to take away passing lanes. Have a look at Our YOUCALL IT #8 for more information.
Cheers

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 18664